get_video_job

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the full payload shape (state, timeline, output, QC), implying a non-mutating read, but says nothing about what happens when the job is missing/expired, whether 'durable' implies retention guarantees, or any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead and the payload list follows. Nothing redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-param read tool with no output schema, listing the return fields is the right compensating move, and the schema fully documents the ID. The missing piece is disambiguation from the several sibling video-job tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Video job ID returned by generate_video'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what is in the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb + resource ('Get a durable video job') followed by an enumeration of what the payload contains (state, progress timeline, prompt compilation, output, QC result). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_video_status, which an agent could reasonably pick instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_video_status, list_video_jobs, or recover_video_job. The only implicit cue is the schema line saying jobId comes from generate_video, which is not in the description itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.